Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20180117

Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20180117

Efforts of community members, weve moved forward in a healthy way we have existing providers and funders who are willing to help us implement this sites and what i was hoping from this memo is a deeper analysis of how we can do the right thing within the confines of the law. The city may need to take steps against criminal prosecution and other risks identified in this memorand memorandum. And im asking the City Attorney gauge the risk of prosecution and other things identified in the best and most responsible result. So this conversation will continue. The other time i have today, colleagues, is an in memoriam for the daughter of reverend arnold townsend, his only doubter, rachel townsend. Rachel was a committed member of the Africanamerican Community here in San Francisco and was a behindthescenes champion in leading a festival every single year. Despite how challenging it was to organize this event, rachel continues to push herself and Push Community members to show up every sippingle ye single year. She was always there for the community and she was also always there to support and help her dad. She was really the light of reverend townsends life. Its sad that we lost her. She was only 38 years old. And rachel was so many things to so many people and an important part of our community, as i said. And because she was so young, there were no arrangements or any Life Insurance that could help to support her and pay for her funeral. So if anybody wants to make a contribution to donate, go to Gofundme Rachel townsends funeral fund. The rest i submit. Thank you. Clerk thank you, madam president. And i will give it right back to you. President breed all right. Here we good. Madam clerk, were going to call our first appeal. I think its item 1821. Clerk comprise public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from Environmental Review under the California Environmental quality act, issued as an exemption by the Planning Department for the project at 2417 green street, to make alterations to an existing 4story over basement singlefamily resident with one vehicle parking space. Excavate two Parking Spaces and facade and lower the existing building. 19 the determination that the green Street Project is exempt from Environmental Review. 20 will reverse that determination. And 21 is the motion to direct appropriation of findings. President breed thank you, madam clerk. We have before us of a categorical exemption for this project at 2417 green street in district 2. For this hearing, we will be considering the adequacy, accuracy, sufficiency of the Planning Departments determination that the proposed project at 2417 green street is categorically exempt from review under ceqa. Without objection, we will proceed as follows. 10 minutes for presentation by the appellant or representative. Up to 2 minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. Up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the Planning Department. Up to 10 minutes for presentation by the project sponsor or the project representative. Up to 2 minutes per speaker in opposition of the appeal. And, finally, up to 3 minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or appellant representative. Colleagues, if there is no objection to proceeding in this way, well open up this hearing. Supervisor farrell . Supervisor farrell before we get into the appeal presentations, i want to flag for everybody that were hearing the ceqa appeal while there are three d. R. S pending. Its unusual and i dont think ive seen it. Were here because it was approved by the notices pending. President breed seeing no other names on the roster, well start with the 10minute presentation by the appellant or appellant representative. Thank you, maam. Im richard drury, representing Phillip Kauffman, owner of the directly adjacent property 2421 green street. Id like to use the overheads here, so i thank you. This appeal concerns a proposal to expand the property of 2417 green street from the existing 4,100 square foot residence to a 6,000 square foot residence on a 2,500 square foot lot. This will be double 2. 5 area ratio. This will not create an additional housing unit. It will take one large house and create a tremendously large house. The Planning Department issued a categorical exemption. The primary finding is that the project would not affect the historical resource, but the categorical exemption ignores the property of 2421 green street, which is immediately adjacent to the subject property and uphill. That house is perhaps one of the most significant historical Residential Properties in the entire city of San Francisco, possibly one of the most historically Significant Properties in the country. It was built in 1893 by earnest coxhead, who was the fore father that used the shingles that came to be known as arts and crafts style. Perhaps realizing that the Planning Department made an oversight, mr. Christopher durkin, has racked up four separate notices of violation. Hes been racing to build the property as quickly as possible, even in the face of inadequate permits. The notices of violation were issued for work beyond the scope of the permit. He was ordered to stop work. On one day, he removed the chimney from the roof, creating a giant, gaping hole. He proceeded on the very next day to remove a second chimney and create a second gaping hole in the roof that led to a third notice of violation. He pleaded then to tear out the foundation of the property. Again, receiving a fourth notice of violation for work beyond the scope of the permit. This is clearly a scoff law developer that is willing to pay trivial penalties to destroy historical property. This past sunday, the San Francisco chronicle ran an article about developers tearing down and harming historically Significant Properties, which is what is happening in this case. It should stop. It should stop here. It should stop now. What were asking for is simply for the developer to comply with the law. California Environmental Quality act says, if a project may adversely affect an historical resource, its in violation of ceqa. Planning didnt realize that this house was directly adjacent. This is an article from the new fillmore newspaper. It shows this is Phillip Kauffmans house. This is the subject property at 2417 green. The exemption only looks at 2417 green and concludes that it is not historically significant. We submit its not, but this house certainly is. This house is one of two homes featured in noted architectural treaties where earnest coxhead himself lived with his family. Raised his children. And it is one of the most architecturally Significant Homes in the city. Now the Planning Department at this point recognizes they admit its a category a1 Historic Resource. Thats the highest possible category of historic value. Yet the Planning Department still contends that the exemption should stand because they claim this project wont adversely affect the resource. We have submitted a lawyer from architect carol carp, who has opined that this project will, in fact, adversely affect the historic nature of the property. And i would like to give you a show some pictures of the story poles that have recently erected on the property. This project will expand the property back four stories tall, almost 20 feet, 17 feet, into the backyard. You can see that that expansion will essentially block major views from the rear of the house, blocking, by our count, 24 windows. These windows look out on expansive views of russian hill. Heres another image showing thats poles and how the expansion would block the windows. Heres a view from inside the home, showing how the expansion would block those views. Clearly this would adversely affect the historic nature of the house, access to light, air and views. And we submit, residential neighbors in San Francisco are not entitled to views, but ceqa expressly states that aesthetic impact to Historic Resources may not be exemption from ceqa. The Planning Department ignored that section entirely in that report. Furthermore, were submitting today. You will hear from dr. Larry carp. He has submitted that this proposed project will undermine the foundation, the very foundations, of the coxhead house. This will excavate 15 feet deep, undermining the tall, Brick Foundations built in 1893, which survived the 1906 earthquake, undermining the foundations of the coxhead house. We also have submitted with our letters, an opinion from a geologist that concluded that it may cause flooding in the basement of the coxhead house. Clearly all of these factors will affect the nature of that house and the project may not be exempted from ceqa review. Secondly, the project is clearly on the citys map of potentially contaminated sites. The citys map shows its within three locations of leaky underground storage tanks. This project will require 408 cubic yards of soil excavation. Again, under ceqa, it may not be exempted if its on a potentially contaminated site. Finally, the third reason that it should not be exempted from ceqa is the project is inconsistent with guidelines that involve volume and mapping consistent with neighboring properties. This is nearly double. And it requires preservation of open space, terracing to protect views, and importantly, respect for Historic Resources. Again, the staff says, those are aesthetic and dont apply in San Francisco. However, under 21099, subsection d, ceqa says that provision does not apply to Historic Resources. And we keep coming back to the fact that this house is such an Historic Resource. Were asking that the board require an Environmental Impact report that will not prevent the developer from building the project we understand that the developer has the right to build, remodel, construct, to improve the property, but he must comply with the law. The e. I. R. Will require the developer to analyze these resources and minimize impacts and minimize impacts to the extent feasible. He can then build the project, but within and consistent with the guidelines i would be happy to take any questions. President breed thank you. Seeing no names on the roster, i do have a question, before we move on to the Planning Department around the contaminated soil issue. Can you explain that based on the presentation . When that information was provided to me, i was surprised that there was still the opportunity to that this project was still exempt under ceqa, when theres a possibility that theres a contaminated site. Can you verify that, please . Good afternoon, president breed. Im lisa gibson, Environmental Review officer for the city. I can answer that question and refer it to staff for further information if you would like. The project site is on a list of sites that are ones where there have been prior contamination excuse me, the project site would involve excavation of 50 cubic yards or more and subject to review by department of Public Health, but theyre able to waive the requirements of their review if they determine that a site has been in residential use in perpetuity. They made that case and there was a waiver of requirements. We have no concerns about the sites prior housing a and find there is no potential for any Environmental Issues related to Hazardous Materials contamination. President breed well get into that a little more in the present asi presentation but i find that odd. Seeing no other names on the roster, well open it up to Public Comment, to members of the public who are here to support this particular appeal. Welcome, judge beya, to the chamber. Its wonderful to be back in city hall where i spent so many years. My wife and i live at 2727 pierce, which is perhaps the same historical has the same historical character. It was built in 1866, about 30 years before the coxhead house was built. And our Property Line is touching on 2417. So if i go out my back door, i see 2417. I see the flags. And i would like, principally, to address my remarks in support of the appeal to the question of the open space guidelines for for the area. Our backyard is right next to where the poles and the flags are. So we will be very conscious of the fact that an area of the open space will be lost by this building. This is of great concern to us because it closes us in when we go out in the backyard. We also sympathize with mr. Kauffman with respect to the foundation and the possibility of flooding because we had a similar situation and brought the same type of appeal here to the board of supervisors some years ago and were successful. So thank you for very much listening to me. President breed thank you. And thank you for being here today. Next speaker . And if there are any other members of the public that would like to provide comment, please come forward. And this is specifically for those here to support the appeal. There will be an opportunity for those who oppose the appeal later on in the meeting. Hello, board of supervisors. Im Phillip Kauffman. My house is in danger. You can read all the reports by lawrence carp, the architects and so forth. Ive lived in this house for almost 30 years. I make films. Many of my films are shot in San Francisco, including the right stuff, hemingway, and invasion of the body snatchers. Its not easy, as you all know, convincing hollywood to bring films up here to be shot. And in bringing films up here, ive been able to break millions upon millions of dollars into this area, convincing hollywood that we have a great talent base and unions and so forth. When my wife, rose, became ill, we moved production into the house. Actors have all over the world have visited. Clive owen, and many actors, weve rehearsed films there. And we intend to make more films in this area and i just want to say one last thing. That when i made a film years ago called invasion of the body snatchers, the challenge was to show that the best city in the world could resist the invasion by uncaring outsiders determined to take away humanity and compassion. President breed thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hi. Im lawrence carp. Im a Geo Technical engineer that works in San Francisco president breed well pause your time. If you could speak into the microphone, please. Im lawrence carp. Ive been working as a Geo Technical engineer for 60 years or so. Planning found a way to waive the contaminated soil issue, but they cant waive the protection act. I have a map here. It doesnt seem to be working. That oblong shape that you see. Thats been part of the four or five districts, mostly around telegraph hill, but this one has ground conditions that are very poor. This house, one of the most important historical buildings in San Francisco, is in this red circle. There are a series of requirements for Geo Technical reports, for foundation designs, and registrations to protect adjoining neighbors to a project. Once the city or planning granted the determination, the planners signed the plans approved without even looking at them. When you look at the plans, the developer has foundations anchored to the coxhead house and you will see those in the report and a lot of other things. Thank you. President breed thank you. Next speaker, please . Hello, honorable supervisors, almost a year ago, mr. Gerkin revealed his plans. Letters poured in to planning voicing our opposition. A few days ago, story poles were put up and they confirmed our deepest fears. It shows that his plans will block the light, air and views of 24 windows, prominent in the coxheads design. Its a San Francisco treasure and National Treasure the house is featured in many architectural books and deemed eligible for entry into the national register. The massive excavation threatens to destabilize the foundation. This will cause serious, ir repairable damage to the historic integrity of 2424 green. Its on the site for contaminated soil. As in other neighborhoods, as you will hear, mr. Gerkin goods has been disdainful of the neighbors. The neighborhood has asked him to be neighborly, keep the neighborhood beautiful and build inside the envelope. He was uninterested. He began to aggressively piecemeal the project through serial permitting, as he violations. Hes a scoff law. We have reason to believe that its being built on spec. Hes left gaping holes in the roof, to lead it a teardown situation. Thank you very much. President breed thank you. Next speaker, please . President breed and members of the board, my name is deborah holly. Im a Planning Consultant representing susan biryd and mike lambert, who has lived next door for 20 years. It is the white house next to the project site. Im here on behalf

© 2025 Vimarsana